Determinants of Economic Risk Preferences Across Adolescence

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Pub Date : 2025-01-15 DOI:10.1002/bdm.70007
Yubing Zhang, Colin F. Camerer, Sarah M. Tashjian
{"title":"Determinants of Economic Risk Preferences Across Adolescence","authors":"Yubing Zhang,&nbsp;Colin F. Camerer,&nbsp;Sarah M. Tashjian","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>This study examined economic risk preferences using a multidimensional approach in adolescents and young adults (<i>N =</i> 444, ages 13–27). Despite the two major theoretical approaches in adolescent economic risk-taking—socioemotional theories and fuzzy-trace theory—comparatively little is known about the role of incidental affective factors in economic risk-taking. We tested six demographic and psychological determinants (age, gender, positive/negative affect, state anxiety, and indecision) on two economic risk decision tasks (loss aversion and skewness). Adolescents reported higher positive affect and lower negative affect than adults, but anxiety and indecision were age-invariant. Women showed lower positive affect and higher negative affect, state anxiety, and indecision compared to men. We found women to be more loss-averse; all other factors were not related to loss aversion. Adolescents were equally likely to accept symmetric and skewed gambles, whereas adults had more nuanced preferences. Adolescents also demonstrated a reduced bias toward negatively skewed risks compared to young adults, but both groups showed similar preferences for positively skewed and symmetric risks. These results support fuzzy-trace theory's prediction of age-related shifts from verbatim to gist representations: More verbatim processing during adolescence facilitated risk-taking in negatively skewed risks, diverging from prospect theory. Positive affect shifted risk preference for adolescents and young adults in divergent directions—adolescents favored symmetrical risks more, while adults favored negatively skewed risks more. These patterns illustrate that adolescents and young adults in positive moods demonstrate risk preferences that are rare for their developmental stage, with potentially detrimental consequences depending on the choice at hand.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.70007","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study examined economic risk preferences using a multidimensional approach in adolescents and young adults (N = 444, ages 13–27). Despite the two major theoretical approaches in adolescent economic risk-taking—socioemotional theories and fuzzy-trace theory—comparatively little is known about the role of incidental affective factors in economic risk-taking. We tested six demographic and psychological determinants (age, gender, positive/negative affect, state anxiety, and indecision) on two economic risk decision tasks (loss aversion and skewness). Adolescents reported higher positive affect and lower negative affect than adults, but anxiety and indecision were age-invariant. Women showed lower positive affect and higher negative affect, state anxiety, and indecision compared to men. We found women to be more loss-averse; all other factors were not related to loss aversion. Adolescents were equally likely to accept symmetric and skewed gambles, whereas adults had more nuanced preferences. Adolescents also demonstrated a reduced bias toward negatively skewed risks compared to young adults, but both groups showed similar preferences for positively skewed and symmetric risks. These results support fuzzy-trace theory's prediction of age-related shifts from verbatim to gist representations: More verbatim processing during adolescence facilitated risk-taking in negatively skewed risks, diverging from prospect theory. Positive affect shifted risk preference for adolescents and young adults in divergent directions—adolescents favored symmetrical risks more, while adults favored negatively skewed risks more. These patterns illustrate that adolescents and young adults in positive moods demonstrate risk preferences that are rare for their developmental stage, with potentially detrimental consequences depending on the choice at hand.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral Decision Making is a multidisciplinary journal with a broad base of content and style. It publishes original empirical reports, critical review papers, theoretical analyses and methodological contributions. The Journal also features book, software and decision aiding technique reviews, abstracts of important articles published elsewhere and teaching suggestions. The objective of the Journal is to present and stimulate behavioral research on decision making and to provide a forum for the evaluation of complementary, contrasting and conflicting perspectives. These perspectives include psychology, management science, sociology, political science and economics. Studies of behavioral decision making in naturalistic and applied settings are encouraged.
期刊最新文献
The “Why Me?” Model: Explaining Moral Judgments in the Eyes of Single Versus Several Victims Acting Wastefully but Feeling Satisfied: Understanding Waste Aversion Issue Information Framing Biases in Plea Bargaining Decisions in Those With and Without Criminal Involvement: Tests of Theoretical Assumptions Ratio Bias Across Cultures and Disciplines: How Academic Background Shapes Statistical Decision-Making
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1